Monday, August 31, 2015

Scott Ballard has released this statement to local media regarding his dealing with the McCollum case.

He did what he could for justice, and voluntarily offered this explanation to the public. Transparency is something often spoken about, but rarely practiced today.

The case:

Chief William McCollum called 911 to report a shooting. The 911 call is the most unusual call I have ever analyzed.

The victim was Margaret McCollum.

Statement Analysis showed that McCollum was deceptive about bringing his firearm to bed. Deception is not seen when one has alcohol blackout, but when one has a need to deceive. As to shooting her intentionally, I do not know; the analysis revealed several major points:

1. He was deceptive about bringing the gun to bed;

2. His distancing language from his wife is the most extreme I have ever encountered. He actually made it through an entire 911 call in which he never used the the victim's name, the possessive pronoun "my" towards her, nor any title, of "wife" or "ex wife", or "finance", etc. The distancing language is so extreme that it is hostile.

3. He revealed his priority: his own self; his career, not the woman lying next to him, bleeding to death.

4. His brevity was also extreme; to the point where he forced the 911 operator to ask needless questions. He worked against police in this 'interview.' Every call will reveal that the caller is either working with police to facilitate the flow of information, or is working against them.

He worked against them.

5. Maggie was reportedly asked if she thought he did this intentionally and replied "I don't think so."

The analysis is HEREwhich is interesting to read in light of what the prosecutor has said about the case.

I have interviewed more victims of domestic violence than I can number, including lengthy interviews, as well as in-depth counseling of familiar rape. Victims' denial is the one consistent factor through them all, as is minimization. Rarely will a victim give an initial honest account; she often is in deep denial that someone would "even do something like this to me" choosing to believe otherwise. Shame, deep and personal, insult, fear, and so many other factors that it is best seen in a case by case article. I have always found that the best way to get information from the victim is through the written statement and subsequent analysis. Then, where there is "missing information", I re-interview the victim. This never fails to produce more information. For some victims, the financial dependence upon the perpetrator is far worse than the public might believe. One young woman, a mother of two, was raped by her husband and reported it to the military. They told her that should she press charges, she would lose her medical benefits for herself but not the kids. She had a very serious condition that endangered her life. Next, his subordinates all came in to her apartment and pleaded with her to "forgive" him because "he's a great leader; a hero..." and so on.

Maggie, reportedly had friends plead with her not to return to him, and now she is utterly incapable of self care. Note Scott Ballard's personal concern for the victim.

Victims of domestic violence need a great deal of support. Too often, I have been in meetings with prosecutors who were so single minded on the "V", that the victim was not given the one thing she craved the most: a voice.

When a domestic violence victim first speaks, deception will likely be indicated. When a "win v loss" prosecutor raises an eye brow at the deception, he loses her trust. Most always the deception is in the form of the word "never"; as in "he never slapped me", (when he "punched" instead). This deception must be worked carefully through, overcoming her internal shame and the incessant self-blaming that a victim does.

"My father told me not to go with him. This is my own fault!" is common.

Worse still is the family reaction: "But we think he is a great guy!" and "It's not that we don't believe you, but he is so much fun and he loves you! Look at all he has done for you!" and on and on it goes, weakening the resolve, quietly whispering to the victim: 'you deserved this' in some form.

These are all presuppositions that go into the analysis. I don't know if I can recall a single interview with a victim that did not have 'deception indicated' initially. I doubt it.

Having a prosecutor understand these natural inclinations, including public shame no matter how much advocates try to counter is part of the initial process.

Scott Ballard had a very difficult case on his hands, but rather than focus upon the case, look at what the words reveal about the man, himself.

Scott Ballard willingly brought this report to the public. His own words reveal some of the conflicting within in, but reveal, instead, a man of deep personal integrity.

I cannot but wonder what our nation would be like with more prosecutors like Mr. Ballard.

I hope that victims of domestic violence read his personal care in this case, and are emboldened to come forward.

Mr. Ballard is clearly 'old school honor' and something we desperately need more of: truthful, committed, dedicated, caring prosecutors. Here is a statement that both investigators and defendants could trust to do what is right.

Too often attorneys "play" a game of "wins versus losses" in blind, personal ambition. Here, we have a prosecutor that could have stretched things and appeared "tough on cops" at a time when our nation's leadership is at war, not only with police, but with authority, itself.

His restraint, his words reveal, is due to what he could prove in court.

His words reveal truthful intercession for Maggie McCollum, specifically hurting that she is not able to walk.

Our country would be in a very different place have we had men like this in authority. Women who have been victimized would do well to have someone with his form of empathy. Justice is served when our laws are followed, even if we 'feel' differently about a case. Mr. Ballard followed the laws and his district should be proud to have him.

I admire him.

"When a case is pending I am very limited in what I can discuss about that case. If you think about it, that’s a pretty good rule.

We want jurors deciding a case based upon the evidence they hear in court and not what they read in the papers or see on TV.

Now that the case against former Peachtree City Police Chief William McCollom has ended, I think it is important to clear the record about some matters.

I didn’t really know Chief McCollom. He came to the police department to serve as assistant chief and we didn’t have an opportunity to interact in that capacity. He had only been chief a few months before the tragic night when his ex-wife was injured. I had talked with him once by telephone while he was chief, but we had never met in person.

If I had developed a relationship with him, I would have asked a district attorney from another circuit to handle the case. As it happened, I felt no conflict whatsoever and felt it was my responsibility to make the decisions that prosecutors make in such matters.

I didn’t have to ask for the assistance of the GBI. The Peachtree City Police had already invited them to investigate before I knew about the shooting. That was exactly the right decision by the department. It was critical for an unbiased agency to review this incident and the GBI is the proper agency for that job. They do this all the time.

I was very impressed by the Peachtree City officers during the entire case. It must have been an incredibly difficult time for them. Those men and women handled the stress and uncertainty of those times with admirable professionalism. They continued to protect the citizens of their city as if nothing had happened.

Chief McCollom cooperated fully with the investigation. He did everything asked of him, even when it must have been very emotionally painful for him to do so.

Maggie McCollom is an angel. For weeks I feared that she would die. At the same time I prayed that she would walk. Those prayers have not yet been answered and doctors seem to believe that she will forever be paralyzed from the waist down. I hope they are wrong.

Maggie and William remain together, though they are not married. They moved to Florida. If Maggie had her way, we would not have pursued any charges against William—she is convinced that the shooting was accidental.

The evidence supports that conclusion. All of it. There is no way that I would ever be able to prove otherwise. Any criminal charge that required me to prove that he intentionally shot her would be a waste of time.

That only left two options. Bring no charges. Or, charge the misdemeanor offense of reckless conduct. The grand jury and I chose the misdemeanor. A person violates that law if he “causes bodily harm to…another person by consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his act or omission will cause harm or endanger the safety of the other person and the disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would exercise in the situation.”

The grand jury and I felt that when he got into bed with another person with a loaded gun after ingesting alcohol and sleep medication, he violated this law. And we felt that he should be charged despite a life of service in law enforcement.

Thursday he pled guilty. He must pay a fine of $1,000.

And I’m left with an empty feeling. It seems so inadequate. It makes nothing better.

But, I’m certain that we did what the law requires. He didn’t commit a felony. We didn’t charge him with one. He broke a misdemeanor law and he has pled guilty to it.

I wish the criminal justice system could always make things better. But, for this particular tragedy we’ll have to accept that it only did the best it could."

Sunday, August 30, 2015

Here is the plain spoken sheriff, Ron Hickman, on the murder of Darren Goforth, married father of two, murdered while filling his patrol car with gasoline. We have not heard from the president on whether police lives matter. Italics added to quotes.

A suspect is in custody, charged in Friday night's shooting death of a Harris County deputy.

At a press conference Saturday afternoon, Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman announced that Shannon J. Miles, 30, a person who had been in custody since early Saturday morning, is charged with capital murder.

Miles is accused of killing Deputy Darren Goforth, 47, in northwest Harris County. Investigators say Deputy Goforth had worked an accident scene at around 8:30pm, then went to a gas station on Telge and West Road. As he was pumping gas, detectives say Miles approached Deputy Goforth from behind, said nothing and fired multiple shots. Once he fell to the ground, authorities say Miles fired more shots at the deputy. Deputy Goforth was pronounced dead at the scene.

Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson said the criticism of police had gotten out of hand.

"It is time for the silent majority in this country to support law enforcement," she told reporters at a news conference. "There are a few bad apples in every profession, that does not mean there should be open warfare on law enforcement."

Harris County Sheriff's officials believe this man is one who killed Deputy Darren Goforth Friday night at a northwest Harris County gas station. HCSO

Many gathered at the gas station where the deputy was murdered for a prayer vigil.

"I am proud of the men and women that have worked swiftly to apprehend the responsible person who posed a significant threat to both law enforcement and the community at large," Hickman said. "Our deputies return to the streets tonight to hold a delicate peace that was shattered last evening."

Hickman said the motive for the killing had not been determined but investigators would look at whether Miles, who is black, was motivated by anger over recent killings elsewhere of black men by police that have spawned the "Black Lives Matter" protest movement. Officials say Deputy Goforth had no previous interaction with Miles.

"I think that's something that we have to keep an eye on," Hickman said. "The general climate of that kind of rhetoric can be influential on people to do things like this. We're still searching to find out if that's actually a motive."

Earlier on Saturday, Hickman had called the killing a "cold-blooded assassination."

The press conference to announce charges against Miles was the second of the afternoon. In the first, Hickman, along with other county officials, issued a plea to the public for anyone who knows anything about the fatal shooting of Deputy Goforth to come forward. Asked at the second press conference why he asked for the public's help if he already had someone in custody, Hickman said he had to be sure.

"We always want to make sure we leave no stone unturned because people who were at the scene who we have not talked to yet may have more details to help solidify our case," He said.

Miles has a criminal history that includes Resisting arrest, trespassing, evading detention and disorderly conduct with a firearm.

Saturday, August 29, 2015

The war on police continues as police have been falsely scapegoated for more than 6 years, and children are taught utter contempt of authority.

Darren Goforth, in the prime of his life, ready to move towards seeing his kids graduate college, marry and have children of their own, has been murdered, execution style, without any ability to defend himself.

The suspect is in custody, but officials have not yet released his name or motive.

The demonization of the police by our president and main stream media, including the most deceptive use of statistics and propaganda techniques that would have embarrassed Josef Goebells, continues, unabated, with the conspiracy of the media who have access to the White House.

Race baiting, outright lying, and profiteering at the expense of the reputations of those who are paid to serve and protect, has emboldened the criminal element and seriously harmed the morale of law enforcement around the country.

Deputy Goforth's chief has asked the country to pray for his wife and children.

Harris County Sheriff Ron Hickman said: 'I've been in law enforcement 45 years. I don't recall another incident this cold-blooded and cowardly. It strikes us all at the heart of public service.'

Harris County DA Devon Anderson added: 'It's an act of cowardice and brutality the likes of which I've never seen.'

Friday, August 28, 2015

For those unable to attend a seminar, Hyatt Analysis offers a comprehensive Statement Analysis Course that is taken at your home or office.

It includes more than 6 hours of lectures, 100+ pages of material, homework, tests and a final.

What makes it different from every other Statement Analysis course is not simply its depth, but its psychology of the principles.

This is a critical difference for not only learning, but application.

When a formula is given for memorization, the brain must train itself in recall. The processing is simple, and it often called "rote", or straight memorization. There is little emotional connection.

"The dog was lost on Saturday, August 12th, at 4PM, in Westbridge Park, Satsuma, Florida."
This is a very simple sentence and has elements to commit to memory including:
a. what got lost
b. what date he got lost
c. what time he got lost
d. what park he got lost in
e. what city this park is in
f. what state this city is in.

If we add in an element of emotion to the memorization, the processing of the brain will have an additional factor, further strengthening it.

"The dog was lost on Saturday, August 12th, at 4PM, in Westbridge Park, Satsuma, Florida. The little boy was heartbroken."
Even though more words have been added to the task of memorization, the second statement is more likely to be remembered because of the "narrative form" of the statement: there is a story associated with it.

Here is an oft-repeated story: a United States chess grandmaster put on a remarkable display of memory in a chess simultaneous exhibition.

This is where one grandmaster plays 12 different chess professionals at the same time. This means he will move from board one on to board twelve, and calculate each one as he goes along.

To make this remarkable event even more stunning, the chess grandmaster does this blindfolded.
"You are on board seven, and this is move forty-eight" would be a common reminder for him.

It is amazing. I have attempted to play a single game of chess, blindfolded, and usually get lost by the end of the game.

As the story goes (I apologize for forgetting the name of the GM), the opponents conspired against him, all making the exact same moves for the first dozen or so moves, but upon agreement, their next moves were all different and all had one thing in common: each move was utterly illogical.
The Grandmaster who could likely play 50 such blindfolded games, was lost.

Once logic was disconnected, his memory fell to pieces.

Whole language for children, by itself, has made companies wealthy, but has decimated reading scores as there is much less emotional connection to a picture of a word, versus that in the simple "phonics" method.

Application to Statement Analysis:

You may, correctly, identify a statement as "concealing information of a private nature" when you see personal hygiene in a statement, unnecessarily. Yet, if you understand why the subject may have included personal hygiene, and even explore for Domestic Violence in her relationship, you are more likely to not only remember the principle, but to better apply it, and improve your skill at seeking information.

You may, correctly, identify that the subject has referenced herself as a "child" in an open statement and how this correlates to childhood abuse, but when you understand the dynamics that produced this word, and you are seeking to learn if this person will be a good employee, or should she work alone, or with others, or is detail orientated or is strictly task driven, or is...and on and on you go, as a Human Resource professional, using the information as a powerful tool. You may learn, for example, that this particular male may have unresolved issues related to this, and in correlation with using language imagery that is aggressive, you now have reason to screen for potential violence, while with another, you have a subject who thrives on heavily regulated work (inspectors) and thrives...

As a therapist or counselor, there is no way of putting a value label on such knowledge.

As an investigator, be it criminal, or internal, or journalistic, the application of such knowledge is boundless.

In business, learning to simply analyze emails can save until damage and loss from deceptive people. For HR today, knowing that one is prone to false claims, as evident in the specific pre-screening questions we set up for HR professionals who enroll in the course.

With the course comes 12 months of ongoing e-support, which is invaluable, but there is something else to add in.

On different days each month, professionals gather in groups no larger than 12, at Go To Metting.com to practice their skills in ongoing training. This is less than the cost of music lessons and is heavily discounted for those who enroll for a year. When one completes two years of this training, one is proficient in ways that were not previously thought possible. It is exciting to watch such growth.

This ongoing, live training, is done in confidentiality agreement, as some of the statements are from live law enforcement cases, or civil investigations. The learning, itself, is invaluable, but the contribution to society, especially in justice, is paramount. It takes the "40% rule" and turns it on its head with "aha!" and "Wow!" moments.

This training is also applicable for CEUs from the University of Maine college system. "Continuing Educational Units" can be applied for which is useful for professional licenses, as well as resume building.

Because this training is live and with mostly ongoing cases, only those who have formal training in Statement Analysis are permitted.

The course for your home or office is done at your pace and I emphasize repetition, especially in the audio lectures. Solid note taking and repetition will assist memory. I have some lectures almost completely committed to memory, as I have listened to them over many years, including via headphones while mowing the lawn, or doing chores. I implore investigators and students not to rush. You may complete the course in under a month, but it is much better to practice while in the course and slow the pace down.

We do offer for those in need the ability to make payments on the course, and encourage those who wish to improve their understanding to enroll. Those trained see a marked difference between formal and informal training, and those who are formally trained often feel as if the monthly training is "the real beginning of learning" as the statement is not simply an academic exercise, and there are no "anonymous" contributions.

Knowing that an analyzed statement is not only going to be used in an actual interview, but may be testified to in court, has a sobering impact upon speculative responses, something we must, by necessity, do, but it is in a 'safe' place; that is, while taking counsel with other analysts.

To sign up for the course go to HYATT ANALYSIS and request shipment and get started on your quest. It will provide traction for your career, as well as resume support, and when you reach the point of 'no return', the discernment will be there.

When a person goes missing, it is a tragedy that impacts loved ones more than we may ever know.

When a statement is given, it is thrilling to know what happened to the victim, and how best to proceed with proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The removal of the unknown is a powerful and psychologically addictive element in success that is further buttressed by the landing of justice.

You may not ever see the fruits of your labor published in the news paper other than "investigators produced new analysis..." types of statements, but knowing that you helped bring justice to a family destitute of their loved one, itself, is of great reward.

I once had a manager who inspired me to put in as much effort in investigating a small theft as any other investigation. This discipline always stayed with me, even as I knew that a person who steals $10 from her employer successfully, will graduate

Lastly, our words reveal our personality type, background, experience and priorities in life. This is the basic profile that emerges.

Even without studying profiling via analysis, the course will bring you to the point where you will begin to see the correlation between words and personality types, which is a powerful insight and can allow you to know precisely how to word questions to best elicit truthful responses.

Your understanding of human nature will change. It will, in the very least, deepen. You ability to predict future violence, not simply from past violence, for example, but upon language and past violence, will show greater accuracy.

Your ability to "read" someone, even in a car sales transaction, will improve.

For those of you of good instincts or intuition, you will only be made much stronger than you already are, as we place the "rules" all round you, guiding and strengthening you.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

I work with some of the finest law enforcement officials in the country. They love their work, they believe in service, and they believe in using their intellect to diffuse difficult situations, and their training to get to the truth.

When a police officer is seen abusing his officer, they all feel the sting.

When a video of an event emerges, it allows us to see our analysis confirmed. Sometimes, we do not have a news story until both the statement and the video are released; at the same time.

Here we have a statement regarding a physical altercation between a police officer and a citizen released to media alongside of the video release.
First, the Statement, then the Analysis, and then the video. Following this is the local news story of the case.

A statement can differ from a video without being deceptive. Errors are made and should you or I be "incorrect", it will not show up as deception because the intent to deceive is absent.

Also, a video can be a different angle than one's own eyesight, and, as we have repeatedly seen, our own experiences can color our "verbalized perception of reality."

This, too, is not necessarily deception, but perception.

This now leads us to an entirely different level which is unique and a great opportunity for analysis:

If you knew that a video tape of what you just did existed, and it will be compared to your statement, and are told this before you write your statement, would you lie?

If, under the microscope of definitive proof: an actual video tape of what happened, which is stronger than eye witness testimonies, the subject is deceptive, the subject is announcing that he is one of the rare outright liars, who fabricates reality, and is utterly confident in his own abilities to deceive. If he lies, knowing a video exists of which his statement will be compared to, his testimony on every case he has ever been involved in, is now suspect.

Also, if true, he besmirches the reputations of every honorable law enforcement official in the country, at a time when it is particularly sensitive and much of the 'bad apple' reporting has been dramatically disproportionate to truthful reporting of all the good that is done by police.

The biggest question is: Would you lie if you were told a video existed of your actions?

It is only when one signals intent to deceive that we pick up the sensitivity in language.eI. The statement"I told Ainsley he was under arrest he again pushed himself back towards me. At this time, I feared that Ainsley would become physically combative towards me. I assume a defensive stance and pushed Ainsley away from me to put distance between myself and he. At that time, Ainsley stumbled as he was trying to push towards me. Ainsley fell to the ground."The subject is police officer Peter Bisciglia and Ainsley is the man arrested. II. The analysisWhen the officer first filed his report, he left out any information of a physical altercation. His superior was testing the dash cam to make certain it worked, and saw the altercation and asked the officer to write out what happened, as well as "Why did you leave it out?" He did not give a satisfactory answer.

"I told Ainsley he was under arrest he again pushed himself back towards me. At this time, I feared that Ainsley would become physically combative towards me. I assume a defensive stance and pushed Ainsley away from me to put distance between myself and he. At that time, Ainsley stumbled as hewas trying to push towards me. Ainsley fell to the ground."Note that "told" is appropriate, since he is in the position of authority. Note "again" indicates missing information that has not been reported since he has not reported the "first" pushing. "At this time, I feared" is to include a specific emotion at the perfect or logical point of the account; a signal that it is placed there artificially. Yet, we do not conclude deception on this alone. It is, however, something much more sensitive:"I assume" is to use his fear to explain why he took a particular posture. He has not been asked, "Why did you...?", instead, pre-empts the question.Also, note the change from past tense verb to present tense. This is not "I was assuming", as in an incomplete activity, but the straight present tense, "I assume", which is not only unreliable, but when taken in the hyper sensitive "because" mode, is deceptive. The emotion here is, in fact, an artificial placement and is another indicator of deception. Did you note "at this time" became "that" time, with distancing language? He did not mind psychologically associating with "this" time, where he informed the suspect he was under arrest, but when it came to the altercation, he distances himself with the word "that" in his language. Even when trying to deceive, knowing that video exists, he is unable to tell the truth. "Ashley fell to the ground" is straight forward language and is true, just as "I told Ainsely he was under arrest" is true. But it ends there. The change in the statement indicates deception. Deception IndicatedThere are enough indicators to conclude that the portion of "what happened" is deceptive. Police should be very concerned that the subject may have sociopathic like tendencies, as his confidence in his own ability to deceive is extreme, which indicates a life long 'practice' or habitual manner, in which he has experienced many successes in deceiving others. This "success" means that he holds the world in contempt, as beneath him, able to be deceived by him. He is a blight to their department. III The video

IV> The News Story

FOX6 News has obtained new video that shows an incident that led to a Kenosha police officer receiving a 60-day suspension. Authorities say it was an unjustified use of force — and on top of that, the officer’s report did not match the video.

Kenosha police say at first, they did not get a citizen complaint about this incident. Instead, they say the investigation started when a supervisor was doing a routine check of dashcam video. He saw something that led him to pull up the incident report.

The sight of Officer Peter Bisciglia shoving a man to the ground, his head hitting the pavement, got the attention of Kenosha police supervisors. They were looking for something very different.

“To make sure the microphones are on, the squad videos are working properly. And in doing so, the captain on second shift came across a video he thought needed to be looked into,” said Hetlet.

Police went to Westown Foods in Kenosha on January 27th for a shoplifting call. According to the initial report, Bisciglia described the scene as “chaotic” and he “didn’t know who was friend or foe.”

On the indoor surveillance video, a man with a red hat seems to touch Bisciglia’s shoulder to get his attention. The officer responds by knocking his hand away — and then shoving the man back. Bisciglia does not mention this in his incident report.

“Credibility is everything when you’re a police officer. You have to be a credible witness for the state for prosecution purposes and we expect certain things of our officers,” said Hetlet.

Bisciglia then shoves another man outside the front door — knocking him to the sidewalk.

According to the internal investigation documents, Kenosha police brought in an outside use-of-force expert. He described Bisciglia’s actions as “unreasonable” and “probably based on emotion rather than sound tactics.”

“Most officers do the right things for the right reasons. In this case, we found there were policy violations. He didn’t do the right things for the right reasons and he was disciplined for it,” said Hetlet.

Bisciglia was suspended in May, but will continue to serve the suspension into next year. That’s because his punishment is broken down to six days a month for ten months. Police say that’s also to limit the financial hardship on the officer — and to keep him ineligible for unemployment benefits.

The man who killed the television news reporter and the cameraman could have, and should have, been screened out in the application process via Statement Analysis. In our employment process, we would have identified him before he was even interviewed.

We are able to set up the job application and screening process to show an Employer, in confidentiality, the single issue that is most important:

Does the applicant have an agenda other than emotional and financial satisfaction from a job well done.

In upcoming articles, I will show how, even in law enforcement, where employees will carry lethal force, and an authority to take away someone's freedom, it is critical to chose an applicant who will use his intelligence to deescalate a situation, while not being intimidated, which only emboldens the criminal element.

The Department of Justice told us, years ago, that 4 out of 10 applicants have an intention towards a business that is nefarious. When this statistic came out, our country did not have its powerful "victim status" that it does today; and in the 15 years since, judges have shown a propensity to punish success and award "victims" who are scamming the system. Every day headlines reveal this "victim status" to an extreme. In NJ, a school teacher was fired because he was late to school 111 times in just 2 years. A judge has given him his job back saying the school did not give him gradual disciplinary assistance. The teacher was a 'victim' of a school's failure to assist him in getting to work on time.

Over and over, courts side against employers, as the trend in America is to demonize success, and award failure. Your company must hire those who's purpose is gainful employment and the satisfaction of success.

Unemployment cases have become a joke in America. One woman stole over $1,000 from the safe of a fast food restaurant and did not disclose this on her application at another fast food restaurant. When the employer found out, he fired her knowing she will steal again. The unemployment hearings officer said, "but she did not steal from you!" and awarded her unemployment, with no sanctions for withholding this information. Statement Analysis would have seen the withholding of information in her application.

In the violent shooting of the newscaster and cameraman:

Embittered racism can and must be screened out, while maintaining legally sound interviews.

Those who seek employment from you who consider themselves a "victim" before working for you will seek to satisfy this intense entitlement at the cost of your business.

The material interest of your company is subordinated to the narcissistic demands of the "victim.

We do three things which will save your company money, stress, and its reputation:

I. We first train your company, particularly your Human Resources professionals in Statement Analysis and the subsequent Analytical Interviewing. This includes video taping our mock interviews and seeking legally sound, non intrusive methods that get to the truth. We use a scoring system to protect the company from fraudulent claims of discrimination so that no such claim can be held against you. Everything is documented, including the report writing technique that is clear and powerful.

II. We help design the application pre screening application to screen out deceptive and dangerous applicants from even being interviewed. This is where powerful information is accessed, and the company's greatest wall of protection is erected: before the employment interview.

III. We now support you for 12 months. This means reviewing all analysis of all applications and should a claim be made against you by an employee, we will guide you, step by step, including interviewing the claimant if needed and help you win your case by the two elements that consistently bring victory:

You will save time in no longer interviewing candidates who come to you with an agenda.

Our initial training seminar is at your location. We will train where you are.

If you are a small company, you may take our home course, and we will still help design your application and pre-screening questions and also give you 12 months of support of your analysis and screening.

This stops trouble from entering your company.

Statement Analysis and Analytical Interviewing gets to the truth and will not only protect you, but will help you identify the best and brightest and place them in the right position for their personality and talents.

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

When a person is involved in violence, on various sides, it often reveals itself in the language.

1. The victim
2. The perpetrator
3. The spectator

Let's look at two elements: the victim and the spectator. In Human Resources, we train professionals to ask specific questions and analyze specific responses to screen out those who pose the risk of violence in the workplace. This will be for another article.

I. Victims of Violence
II. Spectators of Violence

I. Victim of Violence.

Was Kristi Miller, photographer assaulted by Mel Gibson?

Much analysis has been done on the linguistic evidence of violence upon victims. We have seen this in abundance, including elements of post-traumatic stress in language, as well as how the victim relates to the perpetrator. Bill Cosby's accuser, Barbara Bowman, is a good example of how analysis showed how certain words are used when experiential memory is in play. Analysis of her statement is HERE. The comedian, Hari , who claimed to be mugged by "3 white dudes" is an example of when there is no linguistic connection to an event. That is found HERE as there are a number of "fake hate" cases covered. Because the subject is deceptive, any emotion is artificial and there is often a lack of sensory connection in language.
Specifically in the language of violence, we must set our context correctly for the victim, in order to 'enter into' not only the personal, subjective internal dictionary of the victim, but to understand her perception of the impact.

Mel Gibson's accuser is a good example for us to follow.

This is where we sometimes see a change in verb tense:

“I took a photo of Mel and his girlfriend and when I turned around he shoved my back really hard. It shocked me because I wasn’t expecting it. I don’t know if it was his hands or elbow.

He was spitting in my face as he was yelling at me, calling me a dog, saying I’m not even a human being and I will go to hell. He swore and called me a c**t. It was non-stop, he didn’t even breathe.”
I posted this because it is an interesting statement, people enjoy quizzes, but it also highlights the difference between formal training and informal practicing of analysis.

1. "I took a photo of Mel" is very likely to be true. This has the statement beginning with the pronoun "I" which is often reliable because we do not like to connect ourselves to deception. It does not preclude deception, however, which is why I chose the word "reliable" rather than "truthful." In fact, that which begins as reliable can turn towards deception as it unfolds.

"I took a photo of Mel" on its form, is very likely to be truthful.

2. "...and when I turned around he shoved my back really hard" is also, on its form, very likely to be truthful.

Now, with these two very strong statements, should she be lying, it would be not only extremely rare, but it would put her into a classification of a dangerous person of whom nothing she says can be trusted.

This is not what I find, however, to be the case.

Question: What is the difference between:

a. "He spat in my face" and
b. "He was spitting in my face"?

"He spat in my face" is a highly reliable, past tense statement (as long as "he" and "my" are clearly defined in context).

What is the difference between "yelled" and "was yelling"?

Answer: incomplete action.

"Was yelling" and "was spitting" has an action that is not complete and it must be judged within context.

This may suggest that for the victim, this is worse than the initial shoving of the back. "Spitting" is very "up close and personal" and the change in pronoun may indicate that to the victim, the spitting and yelling did not end.

Why did she separate "cursing" from being called a "c***"?

This, too, suggests reliability. The "C-word" is considered one of the most vulgar insults that a woman can receive, especially one who is a professional and may not be 'culturally' desensitized to this word. (This would apply if, for example, this particular word was not used in her household, whereas someone else who heard this word from her own father, for another example, would not find it as insulting as our subject did.)

It is very unlikely that Ms. Miller was raised in an environment where this word was acceptable. This is something her own language reveals.

This insult is given a separate identification due to the intensity of the impact. For her, the "C word" is a whole other level of insult, beyond "cursing."

"Was yelling" and "was spitting" went on, but the C-word was a final, very difficult insult.

This is the "continuation" that we see in PTSD-like statements, especially in childhood sexual abuse.

Kristin Miller told the truth. Even when "less reliable" form of speech is used, we must not only weigh it against the other statements, but we must look at in context. In sexual abuse cases, especially childhood, it is more of a 'norm', to the point where it is 'expected' in these statements. (We cover an entire chapter of study dedicated to the language of sexual assault victims in our advanced course).

The analyst must be flexible.

Spectators to Violence

What about spectators to violence? How does this impact their language?

These are those who hear or see violence in various degrees.

In our modern age, there is a difference between those who are at the location and those who are able to eye witness the violence through electronic means such as audio or video recordings.

There can even be a subtle change in language for those who experience violence through the written word, since it engages the imagination in a way that the audio and/or video does not. For now, the spectator here is via audio and video and even this distance impacted her language.

Those who are spectators to violence must be judged in various ways, including:

a. Were they fearful that they, too, could become a victim of violence?
b. What was their belief system? Did they believe the violence to be justified?
c. What was their expectation? Did they, for example, attend an Islamic stoning of a homosexual to report on it to the West? Or, did they attend because they agreed with it?

These various elements will affect the "perception of reality" and will impact the language.

Secondary and even tertiary trauma is real and needs to be addressed.

Here, in this video from today's news, the newscaster did not have any expectation of violence.

Here is a video of a reporter being shot live on the air. Note the television anchor's initial words: She drops her pronoun. Since there is no time to 'pre-think' this, what caused the witness to violence to drop her pronoun?

What caused her to drop her pronoun? This may not be as simple as "distancing language" in our response. It is distancing language, but why?

******************************************************************************
Because of the broad scope of analysis, there is no substitute for formal training. One must learn, memorize and apply principles.

Once this is done, much practice is needed.

Along with practice, our monthly sessions with trained professionals is a must. It is invaluable as "iron sharpens iron", and the best sharpening a professional can receive is as the hands of another professional.

I experience this regularly. I look for two year commitments, in the very least, from dedicated professionals. Once this point is passed, they often continue, almost like an addiction, and even after many years, still have "wow!" moments, like the several I experienced yesterday on a statement I had already analyzed!

Once this is in full swing, one must then move on to speculate soundly, as to what causes sensitivity indicators. This is where we find the greatest number of errors and where putting one's signature matters most.

After this, one may then move on to a greater understanding of human nature and how it reveals itself in language, and finally on to profiling personalty types through language.

We are known by our words.

It is a long journey, but once well embraced, it will not be lost and will serve you for the rest of your life and career.

If your department or company wishes to host a training seminar, you will receive discount. If you would like to take our home course, including more than 6 hours of MP3 lectures and 12 months of ongoing support, successful completion will allow you into the affordable monthly live training with investigators from around the country. See www.hyattanalysis.com for details.

Crystal's parents, The Ballards now have custody of the four other children, but the child Crystal had with Houcks, has been denied visitation by his father, as the family suspects Houck in her disappearance. They report that this has been difficult on the other children who have lost their mother, and are denied the ability to see their little brother, Eli.

Sherry Ballard has taken Houck to court with the next hearing scheduled for September 10th.

There have been no news reports into the investigation of Crystal's disappearance.

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Julie Baker posted on Facebook that she found a hateful threatening note on her door, telling her to take down her "relentlessly gay" lights or the police would be called, for after all, this was a "Christian area" and there were "children."

She then went to Go Fund Me to raise money for even more "relentlessly gay" lights, which cost about $10.

The donations poured in and when it reached over $40,000, questions arose as to who wrote the note, as some in the public noted the similarities between the note's writing style and Julie Baker's own writing.

Statement Analysis is done of anonymous threatening letters to reveal a profile of the author.

The profile revealed that the author was not a Christian concerned for the neighborhood, but instead the analysis revealed the author was gay female with strong anti-Christian prejudice,
poetic, and, in fact, did match the writing style of Baker, herself.

Statement Analysis agreed with the public perception: Julie Baker authored the note, herself.

Rather than deny this, she avoided police, initially refused to show them the note, and put the brakes on the donations. She blamed "hate" as the reason to stop taking more donations, as her own fear of being caught grew, and said the money was "enough."

Baltimore Internet Fraud investigators were able to obtain samples of her writing, including anti-Christian articles she had written which matched the writing style of capitalizing random letters. Media picked up on it too, and Baker faced a choice:

Refund the donations or face prosecution and a potentially lengthy prison sentence. It would not be challenging to convince a jury of her peers that she was the author of the note. She fraudulently claimed "death threats" with the same credibility as her initial claim of having "received" the note.

Baker is now asking that donators claim refunds as she has chosen to avoid prison. She is still being deceptive in her posting, blaming "taxes" as the reason. The website and all the potential sale of t shirts and trinkets comes to naught, as it was based upon a false report.

In her refund message, she does not ask for forgiveness from the community she scammed, but continues, instead, to deceive.

Monday, August 17, 2015

The following report is republished with permission from The Florida Star.

William “Ruben” Ebron agreed to sit and talk with The Florida Star Newspaper. At this time, he is the only suspect in the disappearance of 21 month old Lonzie Barton. Chief Tom Hackney says his focus is on Ebron because he was the last person with Lonzie and he does not believe the story told about his car being stolen.

Ebron is in isolation and is not allowed to see or talk with anyone other than family, including his girlfriend. Since his arrest he has talked with his father and now The Florida Star.

The first question we asked was “why do you think you are the only suspect? “

Ebron:Because they say I am the last person to be with Lonzie.

The question was "why", so "because is the expected response. "They say" is to quote another, and not an embedded confession.

Florida Star: Chief Hackney is saying you are refusing to cooperate with the investigation. Are you withholding information?

Ebron:No, I told them everything I know. They want to talk about drugs and other things other than finding Lonzie. I did some things in the past that does not look good and I did not want to talk about them. I answered all of their questions about Lonzie. I want Lonzie to be found, he needs to be with his mother.

The subject qualified his cooperation in the yes or no question with "no"; keep in mind that "yes or no" questions are reduced stress for deception and are not reliable. It is is words after "no" that are important.

He stated that they wanted to talk about "drugs and other things" but does not tell us what "other things" consist of. He refused to talk about "them"; that is, things in his past that does not "look good."

This is to say that police believe that drugs and "other things" are related to the child's disappearance and this is where his cooperation ended. Note that there is no talk of immunity. He does not say that not related to Lonzie's disappearance, only that they are "other things than finding Lonzie.

This is to indicate that he is willing to talk about finding Lonzie, but not willing to talk about what caused Lonzie's disappearance.

This suggests possible knowledge of what "things" caused Lonzie to disappear.

Florida Star: Why did you leave the car running with the children inside?

Ebron:We were getting ready to go pick up my girlfriend from work and I remembered an item and decided to go back into the house to get it. The five year old followed me into the house. I took the keys but left the car running to allow me to open the front door. We often leave the car running because you have to raise the hood to start it the first time. After that, there is a switch inside. Once you turn the car off you have to go back under the hood to start it. Lonzie was asleep and the five year old was playing games on my phone. She wanted to stay there so I left her watching TV with my roommate. I had to re-charge the phone before being able to make the 911 call after I discovered the car was missing.

We often say to investigators, "your answer is found in the blues"; that is, the blue highlighting used to indicate the highest level of sensitivity in language.

When a person is asked "what happened" but explains why they did something without being asked, it indicates that this portion of the statement is extremely sensitive to them. When there is more than just one word in blue, it is said to be a 'cluster of blues' and the answer to the crime is found there. The need the subject has to explain why he did what he did is often where our deception is found. Here, we have 3 "blues" close together as he explains why he did what he did while not being asked making it the most sensitive part of his statement and where guilt lies, via missing information.

Note he even gives the reason why he took the keys, though he was not asked.

Note the entrance of "doors" in his statement is often associated with sexual abuse. Since drugs were part of his equation and "things" besides drugs, it may be that both drugs and possible sexual abuse are part of this crime.

Note the need to explain what he usually does

Note that this need is not what "he" usually does, but "we" usually do. This is distancing language since he was not with any other adult. This is to 'share' guilt or responsibility.

Note "the five year old" has no name. Note the need to explain why he left her, although he was not asked.

This is where information is deliberately withheld by the subject.

Note the passive language of "I discovered the car missing";

Note also what is missing from his "discovery": the child.

He discovered the "car missing" but not the child missing. This is a signal that he knows where the child is.

Note the need to explain the delay in calling 911.

The need to explain is all without being asked, making it extreme sensitivity in language.

Deception indicated.

Had this same person interviewed DeOrr's parents, we would have known far more than we do.

Florida Star: Is there anything you have not told the investigators that would help find Lonzie?

Ebron:No, they wanted to search the car so I let them. They were able to check my phone on the spot. I told them there were no passwords, no locks. The picture for the Amber Alert was off my phone. They talked with me about four or five hours that morning. This may sound selfish but they are trying to make me look like a monster and I got to start looking at my defense.

1. Note the need to explain why he "let" the police search his vehicle.

2. Note that he does not say he "let" them check his phone.

3. Note "they talked with me" uses "with" between himself and the police, indicating distance. There is no "we", that is, unity, cooperation, in the four to five hour interview. It was during this interview that the distance existed.

In every investigative interview, the Interviewer will have one or two impressions: That the subject is either working with the Interviewer to gain information, or the subject is working against or at distance, with the interviewer, to hinder or slow the flow of information.

His own wording tells us that he did not work for the flow of information.

Note that "monster" is not using their language, but his own description. This is likely very closely associated with both drugs and "other things" he did not want to talk about, that he sees as a "monster"; police should seek to learn, even if not charged or prosecuted, any links to child pornography or molestation. "Monster" is not the language of police, but his own. "The last to see him alive" is him quoting police, but "monster" is his own description. This is to say that he considers that what happened to the child will make him look like a "monster" and the defense is "my defense", that is, possessive pronoun taking ownership of what is his.

Here he tells us that he needs a defense, without issuing a reliable denial about causing the child's disappearance.

Florida Star: Who else should they be looking for?

Note the question is "who?"

Ebron:We had been warned to watch out for Lonzie's father as he may try to follow us to find out where we lived. I don't know .I just want Lonzie home with his mother.

He did not give a direct answer for himself, but began with "we had been warned...." but then says, "I don't know."

Note he does not want Lonzie back for himself, but only "with" (distancing language) his "mother" which avoids the child's mother's name, indicative of a bad relationship at this point in the statement.

There is an overwhelming sensitivity in the statement regarding the child's disappearance that shows the subject to be deceptive, specifically, about the event where the child went missing, in the vehicle.

He does not say that he did not cause the child's disappearance, therefore, we cannot say it for him. He adds "drugs" and "other things" to the disappearance of the child which police will likely uncover a link between these things and what caused the child to go missing.